Skip to main content
PMC home page
Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection logoLink to Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection
. 2003;4(3):353–366. doi: 10.1023/A:1024069014911

Genetic structure of mountain lion (Puma concolor) populations in California

Holly B Ernest 1,2,✉, Walter M Boyce 1,2, Vernon C Bleich 4,5, Bernie May 5, San J Stiver 6, Steven G Torres 7
PMCID: PMC7087802  PMID: 32214916

Abstract

Analysis of 12 microsatellite loci from431 mountain lions (Puma concolor)revealed distinct genetic subdivision that wasassociated with geographic barriers andisolation by distance in California. Levels ofgenetic variation differed among geographicregions, and mountain lions that inhabitedcoastal areas exhibited less heterozygositythan those sampled inland. The San FranciscoBay and Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, theCentral Valley, and the Los Angeles Basinappeared to be substantial barriers to geneflow, and allele frequencies of populationsseparated by those features differedsubstantially. A partial barrier to gene flowappeared to exist along the crest of the SierraNevada. Estimated gene flow was high amongmountain lions inhabiting the Modoc Plateau,the western Sierra Nevada, and northern sectionof the eastern Sierra Nevada. SouthernCalifornia mountain lion populations mayfunction as a metapopulation; however, humandevelopments threaten to eliminate habitat andmovement corridors. While north-south geneflow along the western Sierra Nevada wasestimated to be very high, projected loss andfragmentation of foothill habitat may reducegene flow and subdivide populations. Preservation of existing movement corridorsamong regions could prevent population declinesand loss of genetic variation. This studyshows that mountain lion management andconservation efforts should be individualizedaccording to region and incorporatelandscape-level considerations to protecthabitat connectivity.

Keywords: cougar, gene flow, genetic subdivision, microsatellite, population structure

References

  1. Anderson AE, Bowden DC, Kattner DM. The puma on Uncompahgre plateau, Colorado. Col. Div. Wildl. Tech. Pub. 1992;40:1–116. [Google Scholar]
  2. Barone MA, Roelke ME, Howard JG, Brown JL, Anderson AE, Wildt DE. Reproductive characteristics of male Florida panthers: Comparative studies from Florida, Texas, Colorado, Latin America, and North American zoos. J. Mammal. 1994;75:150–162. [Google Scholar]
  3. Beier P. Cougar attacks on humans in the United States and Canada. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 1991;19:403–412. [Google Scholar]
  4. Beier P. Determining minimum habitat areas and habitat corridors for cougars. Conserv. Biol. 1993;7:94–108. [Google Scholar]
  5. Beier P. Dispersal of juvenile cougars in fragmented habitat. J. Wildl. Manage. 1995;59:228–237. [Google Scholar]
  6. Beier P. Metapopulation models, tenacious tracking, and cougar conservation. In: McCullough DR, editor. Metapopulations and Wildlife Conser vation. Washington, DC: Island Press; 1996. pp. 293–323. [Google Scholar]
  7. Berger J, Wehausen JD. Consequences of a mammalian predator-prey disequilibrium in the Great Basin Desert. Conserv. Biol. 1991;5:244–248. [Google Scholar]
  8. Bleich VC, Wehausen JD, Ramey RR, II, Rechel JL. Metapopulation theory and mountain sheep: Implications for conservation. In: McCullough DR, editor. Metapopulations and Wildlife Conservation. Washington, DC: Island Press; 1996. pp. 353–373. [Google Scholar]
  9. Centers for WaterWildland Resources, Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project . Status Of The Sierra Nevada, Final Report To Congress: Summary. Davis: University of California; 1996. [Google Scholar]
  10. Culver M, Johnson WE, Pecon-Slattery J, O'Brien SJ. Genomic ancestry of the American puma (Puma concolor) J. Hered. 2000;91:186–197. doi: 10.1093/jhered/91.3.186. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Ernest HB, Rubin ES, Boyce WM. Fecal DNA analysis and risk assessment of mountain lion predation of bighorn sheep. J. Wildl. Manage. 2002;66:75–85. [Google Scholar]
  12. Ernest HB, Penedo MCT, May BP, Syvanen M, Boyce WM. Molecular tracking of mountain lions in the Yosemite Valley region in California: Genetic analysis using microsatellites and faecal DNA. Mol. Ecol. 2000;9:433–441. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-294x.2000.00890.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Farquhar FP. Up and down California in 1860–1864. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 1930. [Google Scholar]
  14. Germaine SS, Bristow KD, Haynes LA. Distribution and population status of mountain lions in southwestern Arizona. Southwestern Nat. 2000;45:333–338. [Google Scholar]
  15. Goudet J, Raymond M, De Meeüs T, Rousset F. Testing differentiation in diploid populations. Genetics. 1996;144:1933–1940. doi: 10.1093/genetics/144.4.1933. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Guo SW, Thompson EA. Performing the exact test of Hardy-Weinberg proportions for multiple alleles. Biometrics. 1992;48:361–372. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Hanski I, Gilpin M. Metapopulation dynamics: Brief history and conceptual domain. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 1991;42:3–16. [Google Scholar]
  18. Hanski I, Simberloff D. The metapopulation approach. In: Hanski IA, Gilpin ME, editors. Metapopulation Biology: Ecology, Genetics, and Evolution. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc.; 1997. pp. 5–26. [Google Scholar]
  19. Harrison S, Taylor AD. Empirical evidence for metapopulation dynamics. In: Hanski IA, Gilpin ME, editors. Metapopulation Biology: Ecology, Genetics, and Evolution. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc.; 1997. pp. 27–42. [Google Scholar]
  20. Hayes C, Rubin ES, Jorgensen MC, Botta RA, Boyce WM. Mountain lion predation on bighorn sheep in the Peninsular Ranges, California. J. Wildl. Manage. 2000;64:954–959. [Google Scholar]
  21. Heeney JL, Evermann JF, McKeirnan AJ, Marker-Kraus L, Roelke ME, Bush M, Wildt DE, Meltzer DG, Colly L, Luca J, Manton VJ, Caro T, O'Brien SJ. Prevalence and implications of feline coronavirus infections of captive and free-ranging cheetahs (Acinonyx jubatus) J. Virol. 1990;64:1964–1972. doi: 10.1128/jvi.64.5.1964-1972.1990. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Heim M. State predicts high growth for agricultural counties. Calif. Agric. 2000;54:3. [Google Scholar]
  23. Hickman JC. Geographic subdivisions of California. In: Hickman JC, editor. The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1993. pp. 37–48. [Google Scholar]
  24. Jackson D, Spence ML. The Expeditions of John Charles Frémont. Urbana: University of Illinois Press; 1980. [Google Scholar]
  25. Lande R, Barrowclough GF. Effective population size, genetic variation, and their use in population management. In: Soulé ME, editor. Viable Populations for Conservation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 1987. pp. 87–123. [Google Scholar]
  26. Logan KA, Sweanor LL. Desert Puma: Evolutionary Ecology and Conservation of an Enduring Carnivore. Washington, DC: Island Press; 2001. [Google Scholar]
  27. Longhurst WM, Leopold AS, Dasmann RF. A survey of California deer herds: Their ranges and management problems. Calif. Department of Fish and Game, Game Bull. 1952;6:1–135. [Google Scholar]
  28. Mantel N. The detection of disease clustering and a generalized regression approach. Cancer Res. 1967;27:209–220. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Menotti-Raymond M, David VA, Lyons LA, Shäffer AA, Tomlin JF, Hutton MK, O'Brien SJ. A genetic linkage map of microsatellites of the domestic cat (Felis catus) Genomics. 1999;57:9–23. doi: 10.1006/geno.1999.5743. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Miller SA, Dykes DD, Polesky HF. A simple salting out procedure for extracting DNA from human nucleated cells. Nucleic Acids Res. 1988;16:1215. doi: 10.1093/nar/16.3.1215. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Paetkou D, Calvert W, Stirling I, Strobeck C. Microsatellite analysis of population structure in Canadian polar bears. Mol. Ecol. 1995;4:347–354. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294x.1995.tb00227.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Penrod K (2000) Missing Linkages: Restoring Connectivity to the California Landscape. Proceedings of the Conference of November 2. San Diego Zoo, CA.
  33. Pierce BM, Bleich VC, Bowyer RT. Selection of mule deer by mountain lions and coyotes: Eeffects of hunting style, body size, and reproductive status. J. Mammal. 2000;81:462–472. [Google Scholar]
  34. Pierce BM, Bleich VC, Bowyer RT. Social organization of mountain lions: Does a land-tenure system regulate population size? Ecology. 2000;81:1533–1543. [Google Scholar]
  35. Pierce BM, Bleich VC, Wehausen JD, Bowyer RT. Migratory patterns of mountain lions: Implications for social regulation and conservation. J. Mammal. 1999;80:986–992. [Google Scholar]
  36. Pritchard JK, Stephens M, Donnelly P. Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics. 2000;155:945–959. doi: 10.1093/genetics/155.2.945. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Raymond M, Rousset F. GENEPOP (version 1.2)–population genetics software for exact tests and ecumenicism. J. Hered. 1995;86:248–249. [Google Scholar]
  38. Riley SJ, Malecki RA. A landscape analysis of cougar distribution and abundance in Montana, USA. Environ. Manage. 2001;28:317–323. doi: 10.1007/s0026702503. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Rousset F. Genetic differentiation and estimation of gene flow from F-statistics under isolation by distance. Genetics. 1997;145:1219–1228. doi: 10.1093/genetics/145.4.1219. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Ruth RK, Logan KA, Sweanor LL, Hornocker M., Temple LJ. Evaluating cougar translocation in New Mexico. J. Wildl. Manage. 1998;62:1264–1275. [Google Scholar]
  41. Salwasser H, Schonewald-Cox C, Baker R. The role of interagency cooperation in managing for viable populations. In: Soulé, editor. Viable Populations for Conservation. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press; 1987. pp. 159–173. [Google Scholar]
  42. Schaefer RJ, Torres SG, Bleich VC. Survivorship and causespecific mortality in sympatric populations of mountain sheep and mule deer. Calif. Fish and Game. 2000;86:127–135. [Google Scholar]
  43. Schneider S, Roessli D, Excoffier L. ARLEQUIN ver. 2.000 A Software for Population Genetics Data Analysis. Switzerland: University of Geneva; 2000. [Google Scholar]
  44. Sinclair EA, Swenson EL, Wolfe ML, Choate DC, Bates B, Crandall KA. Gene flow estimates in Utah's cougars imply management beyond Utah. Anim. Conserv. 2001;4:257–264. [Google Scholar]
  45. Sweanor LL, Logan KA, Hornocker MG. Cougar dispersal patterns, metapopulation dynamics, and conservation. Conserv. Biol. 2000;14:798–808. [Google Scholar]
  46. Torres SG, Mansfield TM, Foley JE, Lupo T, Brinkhaus A. Mountain lion and human activity in California: Testing speculations. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 1996;24:451–460. [Google Scholar]
  47. Turner JW, Jr, Morrison ML. Influence of predation by mountain lions on numbers and survivorship of a feral horse population. Southwestern Nat. 2001;46:183–190. [Google Scholar]
  48. US FishWildlife Service . Recovery plan for bighorn sheep in the Peninsular Ranges, California. Portland, Oregon, USA: US Fish andWildlife Service; 2000. [Google Scholar]
  49. Walker CW, Harveson LA, Pittman MT, Tewes ME, Honeycutt RL. Microsatellite variation in two populations of mountain lions (Puma concolor) inTexas. Southwestern Nat. 2000;45:196–203. [Google Scholar]
  50. Walsh PS, Metzger DA, Higuchi R. Chelex 100 as a medium for simple extraction of DNA for PCR-based typing from forensic material. BioTechniques. 1991;10:506–513. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Wehausen JD. Effects of mountain lion predation on bighorn sheep in the Sierra Nevada and Granite Mountains of California. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 1996;24:471–479. [Google Scholar]
  52. Weir BS. Genetic Data Analysis II. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, Inc. Publishers; 1996. [Google Scholar]
  53. Wildt DE, Bush KL, Goodrowe KL, Packer C, Pusey AE, Brown JL, Joslin P, O'Brien SJ. Reproductive and genetic consequences of founding isolated lion populations. Nature. 1987;329:328–331. [Google Scholar]

Articles from Conservation Genetics (Print) are provided here courtesy of Nature Publishing Group

RESOURCES